Active and Passive Euthanasia

When it comes to active and passive euthanasia there is no moral difference. To say that there is a difference between killing someone and letting someone die is to say that there is no grotesque perversion of moral reasoning. It is the same because a life that is taken is taken no matter what the defense is. The way a being’s life is taken should not be determined as active or passive because ultimately both are inhumane. Rachels challenges both the use and moral significance of euthanasia.

In his argument, he explains that it is permissible in some cases to withhold treatment for a patient and allow that person to die. This distinction between passive and active euthanasia is argued in medical ethics. This withholding of treatment seems permissible yet to take a direct action where the patient is killed then it is impermissible. This doctrine ties to the challenges of use and moral significance euthanasia has. In his second reason, Rachels states that in the case of withholding a patient’s treatment the doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Withholding the treatment is suffering for the patient which means there is a longer and painful death.

Of course, the direct action in that issue would be to give the patient a lethal injection. The initial decision reveals that active euthanasia is preferable. If someone were to say otherwise then that implies that the option leads to more suffering rather than less which, in retrospect, is contrary to the humanitarian inclination. On the other hand, the idea leads to results such as deciding life or death on irrelevant grounds so I agree that the doctrine should be rejected. The belief that people have when it comes to passive and active euthanasia is that killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die.

In the Smith/Jones case Rachels argues that the doctrine where withdrawing treatment has no difference between killing or letting a six year old die for personal gain....